Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • rentmekid
    • By rentmekid 13th Jun 17, 2:36 PM
    • 74Posts
    • 29Thanks
    rentmekid
    landlord bashing
    • #1
    • 13th Jun 17, 2:36 PM
    landlord bashing 13th Jun 17 at 2:36 PM
    After reading a number of posts/replies on this forum, I have noticed that many people hate the idea of someone owning more than 1 property and renting out.


    Frequent comments are: "people cant afford to buy one property, why should you have 2", or similar.


    At the end of the day, a private landlord is providing a similar service to the housing association, so why the hatred, or is it jealousy?


    Also, its not the Landlords fault that someone cant afford a house.


    Are my view justified?
Page 8
    • ModernSlave
    • By ModernSlave 14th Jun 17, 5:26 PM
    • 213 Posts
    • 199 Thanks
    ModernSlave
    I'd like to differentiate between UK landlords and foreign ones. I read this article today:

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jun/13/foreign-investors-snapping-up-london-homes-suitable-for-first-time-buyers

    Research for London mayor, Sadiq Khan, shows homes being used as buy-to-let investments and being held in off-shore tax havens


    This may only apply to major cities but I have a big problem with foreign investors buying up UK flats and keeping them empty to preserve their 'new' value.
    I would like to see foreign investors face much tighter restrictions on buying UK property, like a lot of other countries with limited land have done. Then maybe we wouldn't see so many calls to build on our precious green belt, or sky high prices on starter homes.

    As for UK-based landlords, accidental or not, you are privileged to have a valuable asset that many people aspire to own for their residence. If you complain about having such a privilege it's only natural for people to speak out indignantly. The name-calling on either side is unnecessary.

    On the bright side we are coming into a period of high employment and low interest rates. BTL has dropped considerably and I see both house asking prices and rental prices coming down.

    Now is the time to SAVE your deposit or make in-roads into your mortgage.
    • FBaby
    • By FBaby 14th Jun 17, 5:42 PM
    • 16,077 Posts
    • 39,937 Thanks
    FBaby
    Otherwise known as "cutting your losses"
    Not really business minded then!

    Running a successful and prolific business means being ruthless. The only reason you would be 'nice' to a customer is purely on the basis of you gaining something from their business. If you can keep the custom by spending less on the merchandise, that's what you do. If you think that you can attract a better customer, you dump your current one.

    You can't critisize LLs for not running their business in such productively minded ways, and then critisize those who do and are considered greedy rather than productive.
    • AdrianC
    • By AdrianC 14th Jun 17, 5:43 PM
    • 15,457 Posts
    • 13,778 Thanks
    AdrianC
    This may only apply to major cities but I have a big problem with foreign investors buying up UK flats and keeping them empty to preserve their 'new' value.
    Originally posted by ModernSlave
    It's been an issue for years - decades. Those doing it now have utterly missed the boat, and will probably end up losing money.

    I would like to see foreign investors face much tighter restrictions on buying UK property
    Or, perhaps, simply penalise owners of empty properties harder, through increased council tax premiums, or other measures? Perhaps through some form of compulsory purchase or compulsory rental? It won't be easy to enforce, though.

    Then maybe we wouldn't see so many calls to build on our precious green belt, or sky high prices on starter homes.
    How big a problem actually is it? The article suggests one in eight of the newbuild properties in London between 2014 and 2016, half of which were £200-500k. What proportion of the entire pool of properties were in that range?

    What I find most surprising is just 28,000 new build properties in London between 2014 and 2016? That's ridiculously small in a city of 8.5m people... Surely that figure can't be right...?
    • AdrianC
    • By AdrianC 14th Jun 17, 5:46 PM
    • 15,457 Posts
    • 13,778 Thanks
    AdrianC
    Not really business minded then!

    Running a successful and prolific business means being ruthless. The only reason you would be 'nice' to a customer is purely on the basis of you gaining something from their business. If you can keep the custom by spending less on the merchandise, that's what you do. If you think that you can attract a better customer, you dump your current one.

    You can't critisize LLs for not running their business in such productively minded ways, and then critisize those who do and are considered greedy rather than productive.
    Originally posted by FBaby
    <scratches head>
    Cutting your losses is often a very good idea. Crystallise the loss that you've already taken on paper, and reduce the risk of it becoming worse.
    • Tiners
    • By Tiners 14th Jun 17, 5:49 PM
    • 223 Posts
    • 221 Thanks
    Tiners
    That's not how it works, so I assume that's just an opinion?....
    Originally posted by Guest101

    Oh you tease! Fancy telling me I'm wrong then failing to qualify your claim.

    Please do tell me how the statement 'BTL creates it's own demand' is factually inaccurate'... especially in the current market where buyer demand far exceeds seller supply.
    • Cakeguts
    • By Cakeguts 14th Jun 17, 6:36 PM
    • 3,067 Posts
    • 4,244 Thanks
    Cakeguts
    Social housing usually offers solid, well maintained houses at affordable rents. The only reason people don't want to live in them anymore is that there are so few and the demand so high that they tend to go to the neediest and most poverty stricken people in the country, leading to an increased level of social problems and also a fair amount of stigma.

    If that wasn't the case, if all rented housing was social housing, why on earth wouldn't people want it? Why would anybody choose the extra cost, the gamble regarding landlord competency, and reduced security of private?
    Originally posted by Red-Squirrel
    It was in an area of the North West where there isn't a shortage council homes but the tenants didn't like the area they were living in because of the crime and they wanted their children to go to a school that wasn't full of the children of criminals so they moved out of the council house and into an area of lower crime.
    • FBaby
    • By FBaby 14th Jun 17, 7:32 PM
    • 16,077 Posts
    • 39,937 Thanks
    FBaby
    <scratches head>
    Cutting your losses is often a very good idea. Crystallise the loss that you've already taken on paper, and reduce the risk of it becoming worse.
    Originally posted by AdrianC
    I think I'm the one scratching head! The point I've tried to make is that not all LLs are in it to make a profit, ie. run an productive business, many are fine with the prospect of being a LL purely as an investment for the future. This means that it isn't greed that drive them to be LL as we often read about LLs.

    The fact that there might be no gain doesn't mean there is a loss either.
    • AdrianC
    • By AdrianC 14th Jun 17, 7:55 PM
    • 15,457 Posts
    • 13,778 Thanks
    AdrianC
    The point I've tried to make is that not all LLs are in it to make a profit, ie. run an productive business
    Originally posted by FBaby
    Then, frankly, they're bloody idiots. They could be doing FAR more productive things with their time and capital.

    many are fine with the prospect of being a LL purely as an investment for the future.
    Or, in other words, make a profit. Just a totally unpredictable one over the long term, totally outside of their control, rather than a predictable and controllable one in the short-to-medium term.

    This means that it isn't greed that drive them to be LL as we often read about LLs.
    Profit != Greed.

    The fact that there might be no gain doesn't mean there is a loss either.
    Over what timescale?

    It's vanishingly unlikely that they will break even, to the penny. So, yes, there will be either a profit or a loss. It may only be a small one...

    But if they did break even to the penny, then that's a very strange use of their time. They've also lost money, when inflation's taken into account.
    • Red-Squirrel
    • By Red-Squirrel 14th Jun 17, 8:09 PM
    • 1,882 Posts
    • 5,168 Thanks
    Red-Squirrel
    The fact that you're in denial about reality doesn't mean it isn't reality.
    Originally posted by AdrianC
    I am well aware that we currently do not have a system that rewards hard work.

    Guest101 claimed he wanted one, then made it clear that he didn't really.

    You, for some reason, decided to lecture me about the current state of affairs, which wasn't in any way what I was talking about.
    • FBaby
    • By FBaby 14th Jun 17, 8:34 PM
    • 16,077 Posts
    • 39,937 Thanks
    FBaby
    Then, frankly, they're bloody idiots. They could be doing FAR more productive things with their time and capital.
    Who are you to decide what is best for others. You sound very judgmental and it begs the question as to why? Once again, not everyone make decisions on the basis of productivity.

    Or, in other words, make a profit. Just a totally unpredictable one over the long term, totally outside of their control, rather than a predictable and controllable one in the short-to-medium term.
    Are all those paying into a pension scheme doing so to make a profit? All investments are unpredictable to a degree, property is considered the least so, especially for those who bought some years ago.

    Profit != Greed
    That simple equation is getting a bit too philosophical or even political for me to get into it. You could extend this to anyone who owns something and sell at a profit, be it a house, a car, anything on ebay...

    But if they did break even to the penny, then that's a very strange use of their time. They've also lost money, when inflation's taken into account.
    Who is to decide how people should best use their time? Maybe some LLs enjoy running their business, even if it doesn't earn them anything and they somehow believe that they will benefit in the future. Who is to tell them they are wrong to do so?
    • AdrianC
    • By AdrianC 14th Jun 17, 8:35 PM
    • 15,457 Posts
    • 13,778 Thanks
    AdrianC
    I am well aware that we currently do not have a system that rewards hard work.

    Guest101 claimed he wanted one, then made it clear that he didn't really.

    You, for some reason, decided to lecture me about the current state of affairs, which wasn't in any way what I was talking about.
    Originally posted by Red-Squirrel
    No, I reminded you of basic truisms which will never change. They have never changed, since mankind moved on from battering each other around the head with bones and started bartering instead. They will never change, however much you'd like them to.
    • AdrianC
    • By AdrianC 14th Jun 17, 8:36 PM
    • 15,457 Posts
    • 13,778 Thanks
    AdrianC
    Are all those paying into a pension scheme doing so to make a profit?
    Originally posted by FBaby
    Yes. They're doing so to improve their profit, through tax avoidance. That's what a pension IS.

    The ONLY investment that isn't for-profit is sticking your cash under a mattress. Even putting it into a savings account instead of your 0% interest current account is a decision taken to maximise profit.
    • Red-Squirrel
    • By Red-Squirrel 14th Jun 17, 8:37 PM
    • 1,882 Posts
    • 5,168 Thanks
    Red-Squirrel
    No, I reminded you of basic truisms which will never change. They have never changed, since mankind moved on from battering each other around the head with bones and started bartering instead. They will never change, however much you'd like them to.
    Originally posted by AdrianC
    Hey I'm not the one who said they wanted them to change (I do, but I didn't say it) that was Guest101.
    • AdrianC
    • By AdrianC 14th Jun 17, 8:40 PM
    • 15,457 Posts
    • 13,778 Thanks
    AdrianC
    Hey I'm not the one who said they wanted them to change (I do, but I didn't say it) that was Guest101.
    Originally posted by Red-Squirrel
    He was bang on the money. You just refused to understand what he was actually saying.
    • benjus
    • By benjus 14th Jun 17, 8:55 PM
    • 5,002 Posts
    • 3,071 Thanks
    benjus
    Who is to decide how people should best use their time? Maybe some LLs enjoy running their business, even if it doesn't earn them anything and they somehow believe that they will benefit in the future. Who is to tell them they are wrong to do so?
    Originally posted by FBaby
    Benefit in the future? Do you mean financially benefit? In that case it is earning them something.
    Let's settle this like gentlemen: armed with heavy sticks
    On a rotating plate, with spikes like Flash Gordon
    And you're Peter Duncan; I gave you fair warning
    • Red-Squirrel
    • By Red-Squirrel 14th Jun 17, 9:42 PM
    • 1,882 Posts
    • 5,168 Thanks
    Red-Squirrel
    He was bang on the money. You just refused to understand what he was actually saying.
    Originally posted by AdrianC
    He said he wanted a system where hard work and success were rewarded.
    • Guest101
    • By Guest101 14th Jun 17, 10:26 PM
    • 15,128 Posts
    • 14,763 Thanks
    Guest101
    Perhaps I've not been clear- my fault.

    I said I do not want failure rewarded. I do not want a system where success is meaningless because that's 'not fair' and those who don't achieve what the 'want' are bailed out.

    If you want to be a teacher and educate young minds - that's good. You get the rewards of teaching - achieving your goal and you get paid for it.

    If you simply want to earn money- you can choose to do that.

    What you want is financial reward for work which is financially unviable.
    • itchyfeet123
    • By itchyfeet123 15th Jun 17, 12:16 AM
    • 398 Posts
    • 461 Thanks
    itchyfeet123
    Perhaps I've not been clear- my fault.

    I said I do not want failure rewarded. I do not want a system where success is meaningless because that's 'not fair' and those who don't achieve what the 'want' are bailed out.

    If you want to be a teacher and educate young minds - that's good. You get the rewards of teaching - achieving your goal and you get paid for it.

    If you simply want to earn money- you can choose to do that.

    What you want is financial reward for work which is financially unviable.
    Originally posted by Guest101
    Wait, so you're defining failure as not earning big bucks? How else is a teacher - or anyone similarly providing an essential societal contribution that is not well paid - a failure?

    Do you not think that society sets itself up for problems if people like, say, teachers or elder care workers can't afford a basic standard of living? Talented people will choose other career paths. Which is great for the company who hires them but not so great for students or frail older adults. In the past, people have been willing to sacrifice much more lucrative opportunities to go into the "helping professions" because the non-monetary rewards compensated for making less money. But there's a difference between being paid less while still having a decent living standard, and living payday to payday or worse.

    It's absurd that we as a society value -- as reflected by salary -- the folks in the City who make their money through magic tricks more than we value, say, teachers' aids. But, given that's not likely to change anytime soon, we're getting a bargain if we can use policy to make reduce housing costs such that some talented people decide the intrinsic reward of teaching young minds or whatever is enough to compensate for being paid less than in a corporate job.
    • FBaby
    • By FBaby 15th Jun 17, 6:03 AM
    • 16,077 Posts
    • 39,937 Thanks
    FBaby
    Benefit in the future? Do you mean financially benefit? In that case it is earning them something.
    Call it what you want! That was my point, but Adrian's view was that only idiots invest in property for a potential benefit in the future if there is no immediate earning to be made.
    • AdrianC
    • By AdrianC 15th Jun 17, 7:46 AM
    • 15,457 Posts
    • 13,778 Thanks
    AdrianC
    Call it what you want! That was my point, but Adrian's view was that only idiots invest in property for a potential benefit in the future if there is no immediate earning to be made.
    Originally posted by FBaby
    <sigh> Go and re-read what I actually wrote.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

3,587Posts Today

8,155Users online

Martin's Twitter